Difference in UHC around the world

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Modelworks
[What do you call a doctors office where the secretary draws names out of a box to see who can become a patient ?

I would call it an out of control doctor's office -- not a national health care system.

A doctors office for a province that the national health care system is supposed to provide care for but is so lacking that people have to go to the ER to get drug refills.
The only thing that will come from UHC is corruption and rationing.

Going to ER for routine care is status quo for 50 million uninsured people in the US. Notice how it is such an outrage when it happens to a Canadian, it gets published in a paper.
So what is an outrage in Canada is status quo for US. I find that outrageous.

It is also the status quo for Medicaid patients, because there is no disincentive to do so. If I go to the ER for routine health care I am charged a premium. Not so with medicaid. If you go to an ER you'll often find it jammed with people who are there simply because they can be. That in turn drives up the overall cost of the system. That is separate from the issue of no coverage, but does factor into the credibility of politicians claiming that they will save money, but haven't bothered to fix an incredibly expensive loophole because it would be a political liability to do so.

Politics is very much a part in these programs. I'm not sure how it wouldn't be now. That's why I want to see what's proposed.

That's one thing I dislike about the current system. It's set up perfectly for abuse and over utilization of scare resources, yet no one will dare fix it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sigh.
If patients are denied health care because a system routinely does not supply the funding needed, then it is a bad system. There needs to be flexibility when there are special situations.

If patients are denied health care because they are singled out to be dumped even after paying their premiums, that's bad.


Chances are in both cases this is the exception rather than the rule. There are many offices in Canada which do not have that problem, and many insurance companies which don't dump.

It's not an either/or. A thing is wrong on it's own merits and situation.

This is not about rescission. We are talking about uninsured people many of whom cannot afford insurance in the first place and get routine treatment at the ER by design, because that's the only place that is mandated to provide them care.

I think that there are a lot of valid points in making sure we have a functional health care system. Having coverage and having it work need are to goals which must not be mutually exclusive. I'd be happy to discuss such a system and if it looks as good as whatever hype surrounds the substance, I'd endorse it.

 

[theeedude]

Wait what? If you have someone uninsured who is sick and cannot afford to pay for a doctor visit, we mandate that they get treatment at the ER regardless. Those people are at the ER because that's the only place the government guarantees they get some care. It is most expensive and least effective care, but it's the only one they can get. They aren't there because they want to abuse it, but because they have no other options.
Notice that ER is only obligated to stabilize them so they don't die when discharged, it's not required to properly treat their conditions and cure them of their ills. So they often end up not recovering and repeatedly coming back to the ER for more expensive ineffective treatment. And since they cannot afford to pay for it, that repetitive expensive and ineffective ER care gets priced into our health bills and our companies benefit costs. All this so we can avoid paying a much smaller cost in taxes to cover much more effective care outside of the ER. It is inseparably linked to the issue of no coverage.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sigh.
If patients are denied health care because a system routinely does not supply the funding needed, then it is a bad system. There needs to be flexibility when there are special situations.

If patients are denied health care because they are singled out to be dumped even after paying their premiums, that's bad.


Chances are in both cases this is the exception rather than the rule. There are many offices in Canada which do not have that problem, and many insurance companies which don't dump.

It's not an either/or. A thing is wrong on it's own merits and situation.

This is not about rescission. We are talking about uninsured people many of whom cannot afford insurance in the first place and get routine treatment at the ER by design, because that's the only place that is mandated to provide them care.

He's right. As well as what he's just posted, people not being able to afford insurance in the first place is the biggest problem we have right now, don't you agree? It's a separate issue from UHC, and if affordability was fixed, there really wouldn't be a need for the massive UHC system we see being proposed. I can see the government making sure that everyone has insurance for life threatening emergencies, but when it comes to flu vaccinations, or hepatitis shots, or dental cleaning, let's be honest.

The government really has no business cleaning your teeth for you. Businesses have business cleaning your teeth for you. It would be nice if we could give the same money we give now to the government, and trust them to run the system well. But we CANNOT. If we try this, it will end up costing much more money, and it won't be done well. Our government isn't Taiwan's, we cannot implement the same program that they have and expect it to work the same. Obama has it right in that respect, we will have to implement something truly uniquely American if we want it to work.

Problem is, no matter how unique, our government will screw it up.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sigh.
If patients are denied health care because a system routinely does not supply the funding needed, then it is a bad system. There needs to be flexibility when there are special situations.

If patients are denied health care because they are singled out to be dumped even after paying their premiums, that's bad.


Chances are in both cases this is the exception rather than the rule. There are many offices in Canada which do not have that problem, and many insurance companies which don't dump.

It's not an either/or. A thing is wrong on it's own merits and situation.

This is not about rescission. We are talking about uninsured people many of whom cannot afford insurance in the first place and get routine treatment at the ER by design, because that's the only place that is mandated to provide them care.

And it would be great if we had infinite doctors and hospital beds and medicine for everyone but we don't. You can't just tell people "you now have health care" then expect hospitals and clinics and doctors to appear to fill the need.

As for people who are forced to go the ER as their only alternative that is false in the counties I live in. Every one of them has clinics and doctors that see people without insurance based on what they can pay. My brother has no insurance and his wife just went to see the doctor for a swollen jaw. They only required her to pay a maximum of $50 and told her that if it was any less it would be refunded.

Those are the kind of programs we should focus on , not mandating health care.
With the money they are spending they could probably erect those same kind of clinics in every city in the USA and have much better results. Never will happen though because building clinics isn't worth the same political points as "health care for everyone"

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait what? If you have someone uninsured who is sick and cannot afford to pay for a doctor visit, we mandate that they get treatment at the ER regardless. Those people are at the ER because that's the only place the government guarantees they get some care. It is most expensive and least effective care, but it's the only one they can get. They aren't there because they want to abuse it, but because they have no other options.
Notice that ER is only obligated to stabilize them so they don't die when discharged, it's not required to properly treat their conditions and cure them of their ills. So they often end up not recovering and repeatedly coming back to the ER for more expensive ineffective treatment. And since they cannot afford to pay for it, that repetitive expensive and ineffective ER care gets priced into our health bills and our companies benefit costs. All this so we can avoid paying a much smaller cost in taxes to cover much more effective care outside of the ER. It is inseparably linked to the issue of no coverage.

Your whole post can easily be ignored because the vast majority of ER visits are made for things that could not have been prevented with previous health care. People go to the ER for broken bones, car crashes, life threatening emergencies... Not because they have a cavity, or have developed a heart condition, in most cases. Most things people go to the ER for could only have been prevented by them.

Like I said before, having the government cover life threatening emergencies is one thing, having the government brush your teeth is another.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Sigh.
If patients are denied health care because a system routinely does not supply the funding needed, then it is a bad system. There needs to be flexibility when there are special situations.

If patients are denied health care because they are singled out to be dumped even after paying their premiums, that's bad.


Chances are in both cases this is the exception rather than the rule. There are many offices in Canada which do not have that problem, and many insurance companies which don't dump.

It's not an either/or. A thing is wrong on it's own merits and situation.

This is not about rescission. We are talking about uninsured people many of whom cannot afford insurance in the first place and get routine treatment at the ER by design, because that's the only place that is mandated to provide them care.

And it would be great if we had infinite doctors and hospital beds and medicine for everyone but we don't. You can't just tell people "you now have health care" then expect hospitals and clinics and doctors to appear to fill the need.
As for people who are forced to go the ER as their only alternative that is false in the counties I live in. Every one of them has clinics and doctors that see people without insurance based on what they can pay. My brother has no insurance and his wife just went to see the doctor for a swollen jaw. They only required her to pay a maximum of $50 and told her that if it was any less it would be refunded.
Those are the kind of programs we should focus on , not mandating health care.
With the money they are spending they could probably erect those same kind of clinics in every city in the USA and have much better results. Never will happen though because building clinics isn't worth the same political points as "health care for everyone"

We already mandate that hospitals provide health care to everyone regardless of ability to pay. So we already say "you now have health care" and expect hospitals to fill the need, which is why we have hospitals going broke.
This is status quo. Happening right now because mandate the most expensive, least effective type of care to be provided, but refuse to provide the least expensive most effective types of care. Shockingly this leads to an expensive ineffective healthcare system.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait what? If you have someone uninsured who is sick and cannot afford to pay for a doctor visit, we mandate that they get treatment at the ER regardless. Those people are at the ER because that's the only place the government guarantees they get some care. It is most expensive and least effective care, but it's the only one they can get. They aren't there because they want to abuse it, but because they have no other options.
Notice that ER is only obligated to stabilize them so they don't die when discharged, it's not required to properly treat their conditions and cure them of their ills. So they often end up not recovering and repeatedly coming back to the ER for more expensive ineffective treatment. And since they cannot afford to pay for it, that repetitive expensive and ineffective ER care gets priced into our health bills and our companies benefit costs. All this so we can avoid paying a much smaller cost in taxes to cover much more effective care outside of the ER. It is inseparably linked to the issue of no coverage.

Your whole post can easily be ignored because the vast majority of ER visits are made for things that could not have been prevented with previous health care. People go to the ER for broken bones, car crashes, life threatening emergencies... Not because they have a cavity, or have developed a heart condition, in most cases. Most things people go to the ER for could only have been prevented by them.
Like I said before, having the government cover life threatening emergencies is one thing, having the government brush your teeth is another.

You can always ignore anything you want, doesn't make it go away.

 

[themusgrat]

Let me spell it out for you. Your post implies that a great deal of ER costs are due to things that could be prevented by UHC, or health insurance in general.

My post states that most ER costs are due to things that could not be prevented by UHC, or health insurance in general. While the ER is very expensive, yes, most things that people go there for are unpreventable by regular doctor's visits. They are unforeseeable events, or complications caused by those same unforeseeable events.

I do think that the government has an obligation to ensure that nobody dies of neglect, but the government does not have an obligation to ensure that people get braces, flu shots, and the like. There is a middle ground here. Government should ensure that all legitimate ER visits made by people who cannot afford them are paid for, whether by insurance or the government, as well as life threatening situations, in my opinion. People should be left to ensure to the rest, or in other words, people should be responsible for keeping themselves healthy in all other respects. It's not too much to ask of people, staying healthy. It's really not.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Let me spell it out for you. Your post implies that a great deal of ER costs are due to things that could be prevented by UHC, or health insurance in general.

My post states that most ER costs are due to things that could not be prevented by UHC, or health insurance in general. While the ER is very expensive, yes, most things that people go there for are unpreventable by regular doctor's visits. They are unforeseeable events, or complications caused by those same unforeseeable events.

I do think that the government has an obligation to ensure that nobody dies of neglect, but the government does not have an obligation to ensure that people get braces, flu shots, and the like. There is a middle ground here. Government should ensure that all legitimate ER visits made by people who cannot afford them are paid for, whether by insurance or the government, as well as life threatening situations, in my opinion. People should be left to ensure to the rest, or in other words, people should be responsible for keeping themselves healthy in all other respects. It's not too much to ask of people, staying healthy. It's really not.

Maybe some ER doctors will weigh in and comment on whether the reality corresponds to people mainly using ER for unforeseeable events or using it for care that could be done more cost effectively via a doctor visit. Last time I was in ER, there were some repeat customers getting care for chronic conditions. Probably a couple grand a pop for what could be taken care of with an $200 doctor visit.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
... people not being able to afford insurance in the first place is the biggest problem we have right now, don't you agree? It's a separate issue from UHC, and if affordability was fixed, there really wouldn't be a need for the massive UHC system we see being proposed.

Sorry, I can't agree with you there. The 45-50 million people who have no insurance are not ""the problem"; they are one symptom of the problem...which is a dysfunctional health financing model. Major corporations have been saying as much for a while but politicians have had deaf ears. These plans being cooked up by Congress may assume that people will be able to keep their current plans but apparently, hardly any of them talk to corporate HR executives because the biggest problem is in fact, the unsustainability of the employer-paid insurance model. It appears that Congress hasn't experienced the steadily reduced coverage being offered by corporations. The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies have further focused their desire to do something; no one else wants to be driven into insolvency by benefits. If you don't believe it, wait until the open enrollment brochures arrive in November.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
$750 a month? I pay 73/mo right now.

Yeah, how much does your employer pay?

I pay $130/month for my family. My employer pays about $800/month.

No one in America actually knows the true cost of their healthcare. This is the first problem. Then there's the one that both your contribution and your employer's are tax-exempt, but as soon as you choose to buy a plan outside of your employer's offerings, not only do you have to pay the full amount, but the cost is fully taxed as well. And this heavily-subsidized system, the UHC-proponents would tell us, is 'free market.'
But then again, the UHC proponents believe that the system being presented before Congress right now is actually UHC, when in reality it just forces everyone to buy insurance from a private insurer or face penalties. And the right believes them and calls it socialism! sigh...

 

[CanOWorms]

Some of the European health care systems are/were race-based. The UK health system had to have a racism overseer because of rampant racism in the health industry. I wouldn't even put organ harvesting from executed minorities beyond them.

 

[Adn4n]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Some of the European health care systems are/were race-based. The UK health system had to have a racism overseer because of rampant racism in the health industry. I wouldn't even put organ harvesting from executed minorities beyond them.

Just wow....wtf?

 

[rchiu]

After living in the US for the last 18 years, I just went back to Taiwan this year and got my Healthcare smart card. It is awesome. I can walk into any clinc, including the best Taiwan Hospital, show my card, pay like $5USD for the visit and the medicine, and that's it. No appointment, just wait for your number to be called right there.

From my limited experience with Taiwan's Healthcare system, I believe it is far surperior to US healthcare for most of the care. I still think the US has the best specialists for some of the more specialized procedure, because there are very few specialists and US is there the money is.

But for your day to day care, US is just too expensive and too much crap to deal with(claim, different doctors with different insurance...blah blah....)

I know a lot of Taiwanese who live in the US would get their card back in Taiwan, and go back from time to time for any healthcare related stuff, and not get insurance here in the US.

There are lost of good system around the world that US use as an example. I am sure there will be lots of adjustmet because US is different. But the proposal Obama and the dem. put on the table, not a single payer but covers all, there is government option, and there is private option, there is this and there is that. It's just too much crap all driven by political consideration. They want to cover everyone, but they don't want to get in the way of insurance/hospital/doctor making big bucks off the patient. In the end, it's gonna be hugely expensive, try everything but fail at all system.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: themusgrat
... people not being able to afford insurance in the first place is the biggest problem we have right now, don't you agree? It's a separate issue from UHC, and if affordability was fixed, there really wouldn't be a need for the massive UHC system we see being proposed.

Sorry, I can't agree with you there. The 45-50 million people who have no insurance are not ""the problem"; they are one symptom of the problem...which is a dysfunctional health financing model. Major corporations have been saying as much for a while but politicians have had deaf ears. These plans being cooked up by Congress may assume that people will be able to keep their current plans but apparently, hardly any of them talk to corporate HR executives because the biggest problem is in fact, the unsustainability of the employer-paid insurance model. It appears that Congress hasn't experienced the steadily reduced coverage being offered by corporations. The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies have further focused their desire to do something; no one else wants to be driven into insolvency by benefits. If you don't believe it, wait until the open enrollment brochures arrive in November.

No you do agree with me, I just misspoke. I obviously don't think that the uninsured people are the problem, it's why they're uninsured that's the problem. If someone wants to be free to not be insured, that's fine. It's when people want to be insured, but can't afford it, that we know there's a problem.

Also it's good to hear from someone who's actually used the Taiwanese system. Obviously he's correct, while the system in Taiwan is really good, the system proposed here will destroy what made the US system so good, and end up costing tons and tons of money the government won't have.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: rchiu
After living in the US for the last 18 years, I just went back to Taiwan this year and got my Healthcare smart card. It is awesome. I can walk into any clinc, including the best Taiwan Hospital, show my card, pay like $5USD for the visit and the medicine, and that's it. No appointment, just wait for your number to be called right there.

From my limited experience with Taiwan's Healthcare system, I believe it is far surperior to US healthcare for most of the care. I still think the US has the best specialists for some of the more specialized procedure, because there are very few specialists and US is there the money is.

But for your day to day care, US is just too expensive and too much crap to deal with(claim, different doctors with different insurance...blah blah....)

I know a lot of Taiwanese who live in the US would get their card back in Taiwan, and go back from time to time for any healthcare related stuff, and not get insurance here in the US.

There are lost of good system around the world that US use as an example. I am sure there will be lots of adjustmet because US is different. But the proposal Obama and the dem. put on the table, not a single payer but covers all, there is government option, and there is private option, there is this and there is that. It's just too much crap all driven by political consideration. They want to cover everyone, but they don't want to get in the way of insurance/hospital/doctor making big bucks off the patient. In the end, it's gonna be hugely expensive, try everything but fail at all system.

Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

Whose butt you pull that number out of?

https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...-factbook/geos/tw.html

GDP (purchasing power parity):
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
$738.8 billion (2008 est.)
Public debt:
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
30.9% of GDP (2008 est.)

30.9% of $738.8B = $230B

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

Whose butt you pull that number out of?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html">https://www.cia.gov/library......tbook/geos/tw.html</a>

GDP (purchasing power parity):
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
$738.8 billion (2008 est.)
Public debt:
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
30.9% of GDP (2008 est.)

30.9% of $738.8B = $230B

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/e...=1002521&lang=eng_news

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

Whose butt you pull that number out of?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...-factbook/geos/tw.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html">https://www.cia.gov/libr.........k/geos/tw.html</a></a>

GDP (purchasing power parity):
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
$738.8 billion (2008 est.)
Public debt:
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
30.9% of GDP (2008 est.)

30.9% of $738.8B = $230B

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/e...=1002521<=eng_news

blackangst, do you even read your own articles, that's AMERICA'S deficit :roll:

Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever.

The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and already pressuring the value of the dollar.

The Treasury Department says the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion.

The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also a major factor.

America's soaring deficits are making some foreign buyers of U.S. debt nervous, and this could make them reluctant lenders down the road.

 

[Athena]

Factual Background:

National Healthcare Insurance in Taiwan was implemented in 1995. At that time, more than 40% of the population was uncovered and costs were rising about 13% per year. As of 2008, 97% of the population was covered, and cost escalation was estimated at 5% per year. Taiwan actually has the lowest administration rates of any system and costs the country about of GDP

In 2008, fourteen years after the national healthcare system, the CIA estimated the Taiwanese debt at less than 31% of GDP or $280 Billion. So, with the facts at hand, I read...

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

The article you cite as evidence of that states:

"The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also a major factor."

Not a single word about health care as a contributor to the rising debt...not one word.

So, although it is true that the national debt has risen to 1 Trillion in the past year and that last year does qualify as "since" NHI was implemented, it is misrepresentation and obsfucation to imply as you did, that the escalating debt in Taiwan has had anything whatsoever to do with the healthcare system.

What I took away from that article was that the Taiwanese debt escalation was due to the same drivers as the US experienced ...with the caveat that problems in Taiwan have not been compounded by individuals loosing their health coverage because of job loss or driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't expect Modelworks to retract his false statements. I am guessing he is a Republican.

I'm neither.


It isn't false. Google canada + health care + lottery

What do you call a doctors office where the secretary draws names out of a box to see who can become a patient ?

I call it completely irrelevant to a discussion on national health care. Do you have any clue wtf the connection is? I'm in a rural area. There are a lot of doctors who refuse to accept more patients & there are doctors who have transferred patients to other doctors. You don't just get to "pick" your doctor, you also have to hope that doctor will accept you as a patient. Some of the doctors are more savvy now. You don't even get to see the doctor - good luck on that. They hire a bunch of nurse practitioners. You go to their office, thinking you're going to see the doctor, and the only one you see is the nurse practitioner. Same charge to the insurance company, same copay. The difference is, they haven't announced how they chose which patients to transfer to another doctor, or which patients to transfer to a nurse practitioner. Flip of a coin? Dice? Random lottery? IT DOESN"T MATTER. It's completely irrelevant to national health care.

 

[DrPizza]

Oh, and before you come back with the "national health care will cause a shortage of doctors..." The number of doctors is controlled very tightly by the AMA. That's not a problem with national health care - that's a problem caused by one of the most powerful unions/lobbies in the U.S. Additionally, suppose in your nirvana little world that everyone DOES get a good enough job to pay for their own health insurance? Exact same problem with number of doctors - that problem is independent of national health care.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Athena
Factual Background:

National Healthcare Insurance in Taiwan was implemented in 1995. At that time, more than 40% of the population was uncovered and costs were rising about 13% per year. As of 2008, 97% of the population was covered, and cost escalation was estimated at 5% per year. Taiwan actually has the lowest administration rates of any system and costs the country about of GDP

In 2008, fourteen years after the national healthcare system, the CIA estimated the Taiwanese debt at less than 31% of GDP or $280 Billion. So, with the facts at hand, I read...

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

The article you cite as evidence of that states:

"The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also a major factor."

Not a single word about health care as a contributor to the rising debt...not one word.

So, although it is true that the national debt has risen to 1 Trillion in the past year and that last year does qualify as "since" NHI was implemented, it is misrepresentation and obsfucation to imply as you did, that the escalating debt in Taiwan has had anything whatsoever to do with the healthcare system.

What I took away from that article was that the Taiwanese debt escalation was due to the same drivers as the US experienced ...with the caveat that problems in Taiwan have not been compounded by individuals loosing their health coverage because of job loss or driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.

blackangst posted an article about america's deficit, not taiwan's, that's why he's utterly confused. if he had bothered to read the article all the way through, he would know that.

To think that taiwan, whose 2008 GDP was 400 billion would have a 1 trillion dollar deficit in 2009 is absurd :roll:

FYI, taiwan has a projected deficit of 4 billion this year (and how much of that little sum is even healthcare?). Yeah blackangst, sounds like a pretty fantastic plan to me

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: rchiu
After living in the US for the last 18 years, I just went back to Taiwan this year and got my Healthcare smart card. It is awesome. I can walk into any clinc, including the best Taiwan Hospital, show my card, pay like $5USD for the visit and the medicine, and that's it. No appointment, just wait for your number to be called right there.

From my limited experience with Taiwan's Healthcare system, I believe it is far surperior to US healthcare for most of the care. I still think the US has the best specialists for some of the more specialized procedure, because there are very few specialists and US is there the money is.

But for your day to day care, US is just too expensive and too much crap to deal with(claim, different doctors with different insurance...blah blah....)

I know a lot of Taiwanese who live in the US would get their card back in Taiwan, and go back from time to time for any healthcare related stuff, and not get insurance here in the US.

There are lost of good system around the world that US use as an example. I am sure there will be lots of adjustmet because US is different. But the proposal Obama and the dem. put on the table, not a single payer but covers all, there is government option, and there is private option, there is this and there is that. It's just too much crap all driven by political consideration. They want to cover everyone, but they don't want to get in the way of insurance/hospital/doctor making big bucks off the patient. In the end, it's gonna be hugely expensive, try everything but fail at all system.

Check out Taiwan's debt some time since institutiong their current plan. Hits a trillion this year, and growing. Sounds like a fantastic plan to me

Also Taiwan cost of living is a lot less than USA.